The statement refers to the semantic of the __assertions__, not to the
framework or attachments
specs themselves.
It isn't clear to me that we can say anything about the
subject/scope/semantic of an assertion.
I think that this does indeed seem reasonable as a guideline.
Cheers,
Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
phone: +1 508 377 9295
Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
01/15/2007 10:02 AM
To
ext Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
cc
Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, Felix Sasaki
<fsasaki@w3.org>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Subject
Re: [NEW ISSUE]: LC Comments from SAWSDL WG
If a normative statement such as "SHOULD NOT" needs to be expressed,
then doesn't that need to be in either the framework or attachment
specification?
I agree discussion belongs in guidelines, but am asking about where
to place the corresponding normative statement.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Jan 14, 2007, at 1:50 AM, ext Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
>
>> Policy Assertions on interfaces, (or WSDL 1.1 portTypes), operations
>> and messages (the abstract WSDL descriptions) SHOULD NOT describe the
>> formal semantics of messages or the action performed by the
>> operations.
>
> This is a guideline for the assertion authors. Section 4.3.3 'Self
> Describing Messages' in the Guidelines document makes a similar
> general
> point: 'Policy assertions should not be used express the semantics
> of a
> message' [1]. We agree that assertion authors should not define policy
> assertions to represent information that is necessary to understand a
> message. The Guidelines document is the natural residence for such
> materials. The suggested guideline cannot be enforced by the
> attachment
> draft. We suggest marking this issue as a Guidelines document issue.
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-guidelines-20061221/#self-
> describ
> ing
>
> Regards,
>
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> Microsoft Corporation
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:07 AM
> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: [NEW ISSUE]: LC Comments from SAWSDL WG
>
>
> See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy-comments/
> 2007Jan/00
> 00.html
> and http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4188 . Below is a
> copy
> of the text.
>
> Felix
>
> The SAWSDL Working Group has reviewed the Web Services Policy 1.5
> set of
> specifications and has the following comments.
>
> We assume that semantic annotations and policy attachments are
> orthogonal
> extensions to WSDL 2.0 (and 1.1) and when combined on the same WSDL
> component , can be processed and interpreted independently. You
> should
> confirm that this is the case.
>
> We recommend that the following statement be made in Web Services
> Policy
> 1.5 - Attachment to avoid possible future conflicts between SAWSDL
> and
> the
> WS-Policy specifications: Policy Assertions on interfaces, (or
> WSDL 1.1
> portTypes), operations and messages (the abstract WSDL descriptions)
> SHOULD
> NOT describe the formal semantics of messages or the action
> performed by
> the operations.
>
> Regards,
> Joel
>
>
>